Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-005652

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/52258/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 13th of May 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LOKE

Between

JA
(AnONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr D Lemer, Counsel instructed by Rashid and Rashid Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr M Parvar, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on Tuesday 14 April 2026 Field House

Order regarding Anonymity
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
BACKGROUND
1. The Appellant is a Pakistani national (dob 27.9.94). He claimed asylum on 27 January 2023 on the basis of his religion and imputed political opinion. The Respondent refused his protection claim on 12 January 2024. His appeal was dismissed by First-tier Judge Drew on 23 October 2025.
2. On 9 February 2026 the Upper Tribunal set this decision aside on a limited basis. The findings of the First-tier with respect of the Appellant’s claim to have been mis-treated by KN members are preserved. The findings of the First-tier with respect of credibility are preserved. However, the findings with respect of the Appellant’s claim that he faces persecution on account of being an Ahmadi Muslim were set aside.

ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL
3. The issue with respect of this appeal is whether, on the balance of probabilities, the Appellant is at risk upon return to Pakistan on account of being an Ahmadi Muslim.
4. The relevant country guidance is MN and others (Ahmadis – country conditions - risk) Pakistan CG [2012] UKUT 389 (IAC) as amended by WA (Pakistan) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 302 which held that the relevant test remained the test laid out in HJ (Iran) [2010] UKSC 31.
5. With respect of documentary evidence I had the application for permission bundle that ran to 508 pages (B/*) and an additional bundle which ran to 16 pages (AB/*)

FINDINGS
6. Applying the 4-stage test as laid out in HJ (Iran), the first consideration is whether the Appellant is indeed an Ahmadi Muslim. This is not in dispute. It is accepted by the Respondent that this is the case.
7. The second question is whether Ahmadi Muslims have a well-founded fear of persecution in Pakistan. The Country Policy and Information Note: Ahmadis Pakistan March 2025 (‘The CPIN’) at 3.1.1. indicates that Ahmadis who openly practice their faith, beyond the restricted basis permitted by domestic law are likely to face a real risk of persecution or serious harm from the Pakistan authorities. The Respondent accepts an Ahmadi Muslim who openly practises their faith has a well founded fear of persecution.
8. The third question for me, is whether upon his return would the Appellant practice his faith openly. In order to determine this question I consider the evidence as to the Appellant’s commitment to his religion. I note that the previous tribunal made a number of adverse credibility findings with respect of the Appellant’s main claim to have been persecuted by KN members. I was invited by the Respondent to consider the issues in this appeal in the light of those adverse credibility findings. However, I note that the First-tier Tribunal’s decision at [26] where the Judge expressly declined to make adverse credibility findings with respect of the Appellant’s account as to his role within the Ahmadi community. The Judge found that on this point the Appellant was not inconsistent and also referred to the letter in support of his application from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association United Kingdom (‘AMA UK’) at B/253 which confirmed he worked within the security team to guard the mosque.
9. The Respondent further submitted to me that the Appellant was inconsistent with respect of his volunteering duties, indicating in his first witness statement that he started to volunteer for mosque duties at age 5-6, however in Q27 of his asylum interview he stated he had volunteered 2 years previously. Looking at his asylum interview, with respect of the preceding questions, they were directed at his work within the security team rather than volunteering duties generally. At Q29 of the interview the Appellant also referred to the fact he had done other volunteering duties prior to his work with the security team.
10. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Appellant was an active member of the Ahmadi community in Pakistan and did volunteer as leading a security team. With respect to whether this amounts to open practise, I bear in mind the limitations placed upon Ahmadis, summarised in MN at [119(i)]:
The background to the risk faced by Ahmadis is legislation that restricts the way in which they are able openly to practise their faith. The legislation not only prohibits preaching and other forms of proselytising but also in practice restricts other elements of manifesting one’s religious beliefs, such as holding open discourse about religion with non-Ahmadis, although not amounting to proselytising. The prohibitions include openly referring to one’s place of worship as a mosque and to one’s religious leader as an Imam.
The limitations are stringent. However, on his account, while the Appellant may well have been an active and involved member of his community, acting as the head of a security team, there is nothing in his evidence which indicates that he practised his faith openly, ie outside of his community, such that he would have faced persecution.
11. The Appellant whilst in the United Kingdom states that he is now practising his faith openly. In evidence he stated that upon return he would practise his faith openly. There are letters from the AMA UK, the most recent of which is dated 6 March 2026 at AB/14 which outlines the fact he is an active member attending prayers and other community events. It was submitted by the Respondent that both AMA UK letters were written by someone who had never met the Appellant, and no one from the Ahmadiyya community had attended court in support. I note that with respect of the letter, the secretary Mr Mahmood of the AMA UK states that he had received a report from the Wandsworth branch, the Appellant’s local branch who confirmed his active participation by way of attending sermons, meetings and other events.
12. I take note of what is outlined in the CPIN at Annex B, a discussion had between an Ahmadi community leader and two officials from the International Human Rights Committee (‘IHRC’), at section 30 regarding the Verification Process. It was affirmed that the verification process for the AMA UK is intact and works well, confirming that the AMA UK will only issue a letter where there has been verification directly from Pakistan or via the local Ahmadi chapter in the UK. It was described by the IHRC officials as a very strict process. In my view, the verification processes as outlined in both AMA UK letters bears this out.
13. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that whilst in the United Kingdom, the Appellant has been practising his faith openly and is an active member of the Ahmadiyya community as described within the AMA UK letter. This includes openly identifying as an Ahmadi Muslim, attending mosques and attending meetings where discussions take place with external guests outside of the Ahmadi community. I also take account of the photographs and the membership card of the AMA UK at B/223. However, whilst he has practised his faith openly in the United Kingdom, the question is whether he would practise his faith openly were he returned to Pakistan. The Appellant’s evidence is that he would. I bear in mind that crucial parts of his evidence were rejected by the previous Tribunal, and that whilst in Pakistan while he was an involved member there is nothing to indicate he practised his faith illegally outside his community. On the other hand, the previous Tribunal nonetheless found that he was credible with respect of his evidence regarding his religion and he has now spent over three years in the United Kingdom practising his faith unrestricted. I accept this renders returning to a far more regulated regime more difficult. On balance, I accept that he would if returned practise his faith openly.
14. Finally, and in any event, even if I were to find the Appellant would not practise his faith openly, I am satisfied that a material reason for this would be a fear of persecution by the Pakistani authorities. His activities as outlined in the AMA UK letter would plainly contravene Pakistani law, and there is no reason for him to cease such activity upon return unless it were to avoid persecution.
15. I therefore allow this appeal.

NOTICE OF DECISION
16. The Appellant’s appeal is allowed.

S Y Loke
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Loke
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
6 May 2026